Roundtable Annual Report 2014 by The Fund for Peace

Security Rights & Development Roundtable

Annual Report 2014

The Fund for Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, 501 (c)(3) non-profit research and educational organization that works to prevent violent conflict and promote sustainable security. We promote sustainable security through research, training and education, engagement of civil society, building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy makers. A leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, The Fund for Peace focuses on the problems of weak and failing states. Our objective is to create practical tools and approaches for conflict mitigation that are useful to decision-makers. Copyright ÂŠ 2015 The Fund for Peace. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Fund for Peace. Editors J. J. Messner Report Written by J. J. Messner, Hannah Blyth, Sarah Silverman Circulation: PUBLIC The Fund for Peace 1720 I Street NW, 7 T: +1 202 223 7940 F: +1 202 223 7947 Washington, D.C. 20006 www.fundforpeace.org

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable: Annual Report 2014 Looking Ahead to 2015 Approaching its eighteenth year

public security forces and the standards

since its launch, the Security, Rights &

and increasingly contractual obligations of

Development Roundtable has witnessed a

private security contractors.

The Roundtable Tentative 2015 Roundtable Schedule

rapid change in the ways companies, civil

society, governments and NGOs interact

At a global policy level, the UN Guiding

Supporters and Participants

and address issues of business and human

Principles on Business and Human Rights is

Roundtable Presenters

rights worldwide.

in its fourth year since being endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council, and will help

We are a long way from the days of

shape the post-2015 Development Agenda

traditional siloed communication between

at the UN Summit next September. In other

mainstream human rights organizations

spheres

and multinational businesses. Today we see

compliance mechanisms implemented for

a transformation in the social and corporate

monitoring supply chain accountability but,

responsibility landscape. Greater collabora-

as outlined in the First Roundtable for this

tion between a vast range of stakeholder

year, there is still much work to be done.

have

seen a number of

groups, and an evolution of the tools, forums, and compliance frameworks for

As we move into 2015, the Roundtable

approaching issues of human rights and

discussions will look at a range of topics

business

have been central to the gains

which are pertinent to the multifaceted

made for both communities and businesses

sphere of human rights and business in

operating in fragile environments.

which we now find ourselves. This includes

Year in Review: The Roundtable in 2014 1: Human Rights Compliance in the Supply Chain 2: Measuring Impact in Implementation 3: Maritime Security and the Extractive Industry 4: Beyond Grievance and Feedback Mechanisms 5: Security Sector Reform and Stability 6: Managing First Contact

examining the different types of human The Voluntary Principles on Security and

rights certifications available, as well as

Human Rights reaches its 15th year in 2015,

some of the more innovative partnerships

similar community engagement approach-

and remains an important example of how

between NGOs and companies to measure

es, as well as guidelines such as the

multistakeholder

and mitigate poverty.

Voluntary Principles.

change at senior levels, but also implement-

In the year ahead, the Roundtable will look

The

ing it effectively on the ground. In this year's

beyond extractives industries to study the

important role in knowledge sharing which

fifth Roundtable discussion, which was on

experiences of other sectors operating in

cuts across sectors and the public and

the subject of Security Sector Reform, we

fragile

includes

private spheres to address sustainable

were able to see the strides that have been

renewable energy and other large scale

development and security issues. We look

made in Voluntary Principles implementa-

development projects, and how companies,

forward to another great year ahead.

tion both in the engagement and training of

investors and other stakeholders can apply

dialogue

can

effective means of not only talking about

environments.

www.fundforpeace.org

This

The Fund for Peace

Roundtable

continues

play

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable: 2015 Tentative Schedule

A tentative schedule for the 2015 Security, Rights & Development Roundtable (formerly the Human Rights & Business Roundtable) is provided below. Please note that dates are subject to change due to unforeseen scheduling conflicts or in order to fit with the personal schedules of presenters. We will however make every effort to maintain the schedule as closely as possible.

February

Week of Feb 16-20*

April

Week of April 27-May 1*

June

Week of June 15-19*

Understanding and Addressing Poverty

The Voluntary Principles Beyond Extractives

It is widely recognized that extractive operations can have a significant economic impact on local communities. Sometimes, those communities may be economically disadvantaged and impoverished. It is critical that companies better understand their impact on poverty, and how to ensure that communities are lifted out of -- and not allowed to descend further into -- poverty.

The Voluntary Principles have demonstrated significant impact on improving the security and human rights policies and practices of oil, gas, and mining companies. But there are many other sectors that can benefit from them. This Roundtable will examine how the VPs can be used by other non-extractive sectors, and how those sectors can be engaged.

September Week of Sep 14-18*

Informed and Educated Stakeholders

Human Rights in Certification Frameworks

Information may be power, but it should also be seen as empowering. Many conflicts occur due to a lack of information and understanding. This Roundtable will examine how informing and educating stakeholders can improve understanding, and even empower stakeholders such as artisanal miners, not only by reducing conflict but by fostering economic development.

As certification frameworks become more commonly accepted by industry in addressing various aspects of business operations, some issues present challenges in how to quantify, let alone certify. This Roundtable will address the issue of human rights in certification systems, and how such a broad and important topic can be quantified and assessed.

October

Week of Oct 26-30*

Renewable Energy and Human Rights

Improving the Security Landscape

The renewable energy sector faces many of the same operational challenges and can affect communities in many of the same ways as the oil, gas, and mining industries. This Roundtable will seek to understand those challenges and what lessons can be learned from the experiences of other industries.

Extractive companies frequently find themselves operating in fragile and insecure environments. Though oil, gas, and mining operations are sometimes linked by media and activists to conflict and insecurity, this Roundtable will examine how companies can help contribute to greater security in their areas of operation, even leaving a legacy of greater stability.

6 December Week of Dec 7-11*

* Exact date to be finalized in approximately 1-2 months in advance of each Roundtable. Please note that dates are subject to change.

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Roundtable Supporters and Participants in 2014

The Fund for Peace is grateful for the continuing support of the Corporate Members of the Security, Rights & Development Roundtable.

Chevron

Premier Supporter of the Security, Rights & Development Roundtable

Barrick Gold

ConocoPhillips

ExxonMobil

Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold

Hess

Kosmos Energy

Newmont Mining

Shell

FFP also thanks the following organizations for their continuing participation in the Security, Rights & Development Roundtable:

              

Access Health Worldwide Africare American University Brookings Institute Cardno Emerging Markets Citi Coca Cola Compliance Advisory Ombudsman Conflict Risk Network ConocoPhillips Consensus Building Institute CSIS Devonshire Initiative DLA Piper LLP Due Process of Law Foundation

      

Enough Project

 

Holland & Hart LLP

Estelle Levin GHD Global Financial Integrity Global Rights Goldcorp Government of Canada, CSR Counselor House Committee on Homeland Security

 

Hudbay



International Stability Operations Assoc.



IO Sustainability

International Finance Corporation

www.fundforpeace.org

           

KD Geospatial

  

Partnership Africa Canada

King & Spalding LLP Monkey Forest Montreux Solutions National Democratic Institute National Geospatial Agency NDPI Foundation NXG Global OPIC OTH Solutions Pact Partners for Democratic Change Philip Morris International Resolv

The Fund for Peace

           

RioTinto Suncor Energy Sustainable Waste Resources TD International Tufts University United Nations Association Unity Resources Group Universal Rights Network U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Department of State Verite World Bank Group

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Roundtable Presenters in 2014

The Fund for Peace would like to thank the following experts (including many coming to the Roundtable from far and wide) for their contributions in leading and facilitating the Roundtable discussions in 2014:

Gregory Belanger Academi Reston, Virginia

Rebecca Holliday Chevron Washington, D.C.

Jean Marc Bidjo CIME International / Kosmos Energy Dallas, Texas

Christopher Holshek Alliance for Peacebuilding Washington, D.C.

Patrick Bindon Barrick Gold Toronto, Canada

Shari Knoerzer Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Phoenix, Arizona

Brad Brooks-Rubin Holland & Hart Washington, D.C.

Tim McLaughlin Monkey Forest Washington, D.C.

Holly Dranginis Enough Project Washington, D.C.

Kevin Petit Performance Systems Washington, D.C.

Jonathan Drimmer Barrick Gold Toronto, Canada

Brian Ray Noble Energy Houston, Texas

Greg Gardner Arche Advisors Washington, D.C.

Rhonda Schlangen Evaluation Consulting Washington, D.C.

Emily Greenspan Oxfam America Washington, D.C.

Jeffrey Swedberg QED Group LLC Washington, D.C.

Phillip J. Heyl U.S. Africa Command Stuttgart-Moehringen, Germany

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Human Rights Compliance in the Supply Chain Roundtable 1: February 19, 2014 Increasingly, companies are being held accountable not only for their own actions, but also for those of vendors, suppliers, sub-contractors, and other companies within their supply chain. This Roundtable examined various supply chain standards and how companies can help to ensure compliance on human rights standards by their supply chains. Presenters detailed the deficiencies of the auditing process and the difficulties companies face in investigating and regulating their own upstream supply chains. The Roundtable highlighted some of the limitations within existing regulatory frameworks such as the semantic ambiguity of international initiatives. Participants stressed the need for stronger and better clarified sanctions for businesses to improve compliance.

trafficking, child labor, forced labor and

Whether auditors and the companies they

fundamentally redefined the supply chain

Today’s

discrimination

represent are truly powerless facing these

and

common

overcrowding,

abuses is arguable. Though some compa-

operate in complex webs in which partners,

harassment, illegal overtime, unpaid wages,

nies may be aware of the abuses in the

suppliers,

its

global

management.

economy Companies

sub-contractors

now

lower-level

abuses

yet

vendors

and disregard for safety or environmental

upstream supply chain, yet these issues are

come from all corners of the globe. While

regulations. While aware of these potential

sometimes considered to be the “necessary

expanding

chain

abuses, external auditors rarely hold parent

side-effects” of the constant strive for lower

certainly has benefits, it also involves costs.

companies responsible in their reporting.

production costs. Addressing human rights

As such, while companies do establish

First, determining what is or is not accepta-

abuses simply does not always fit within the

codes

with their overseas

ble outside of a company’s code of conduct

business model of all companies. As such,

partners, they often lack full oversight and

is complex, especially in different cultural

strict regulatory frameworks with harsh

control over some of the practices that exist

contexts.

sub-

economic sanctions should be implemented

in their factories. Because companies are

contractors often “cheat” audits, either

to increase the cost of non-compliance and

increasingly held accountable when abuses

through allowing selective inspection of

eventually compel companies to review

and scandals make the headlines, compa-

their facilities, misrepresenting time records

their business plans.

nies are working to ensure compliance on

or even renting normally missing equipment

human rights in their supply chains through

specifically for the evaluation. When issues

Regulatory frameworks do exist, however,

better auditing, stricter sanctions, more

are raised, they are tackled with temporary

but they have limitations. The second and

comprehensive legislation or due diligence.

solutions, but abuses tend to return once

third presentations outlined some of these

the

limitations and the alternative avenues to

The first presentation provided an overview

consultants is rendered even more difficult

better compliance. It is increasingly difficult

of the plethora of abuses encountered in

as the industry is constantly changing, with

to implement change in legal and regulatory

upstream supply chains, particularly in

new trends and new issues emerging yearly.

frameworks in emerging markets. Further-

company’s

of conduct

and

has

supply

Second,

auditors

are

suppliers

gone.

The

and

work

factories. These range from the gross

more, sanctions might be efficient in the

human rights violations that include human

short-term but isolation is costly in the long

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights and Development Roundtable 2014

run.

and

number of questions: Is the company

within their business models. They have

human rights cannot be ‘forced’, rather

Sanctions

are

unsustainable,

directly linked to abuses through its sub-

gradually implemented better programs,

needing to be embraced slowly by compa-

contractors? Would a company be responsi-

run better audits, have been stricter with

nies and integrated into their business

ble if one of its workers was involved in a

their

models. Fortunately, many companies have

case

profitability

moved in that direction, realizing that

consumed alcohol in the company’s bar?

example,

consumers do care about the issue of

Such language can be vague enough to be

around

human rights, and that abuses in the

confusing.

scandals in the 1990s, and is today seen as

domestic

abuse

after

having

upstream supply chain could be detrimental

suppliers, and

while

efficiency.

completely after

retaining

turned

series

their

Nike, its

for

image

sweatshops

one of the global leaders in corporate social

to their reputation and their profits. The

Semantic

concern

about

challenges debated by the participants

NGOs and advocacy groups, businesses

“them” (upstream companies and their

during the roundtable. They noted that,

have also bridged the gap with civil society,

workers), but also about “us” (downstream

because it is unclear whom these guidelines

and are today interacting with the non-

companies, their image, their sales). This

and reports are really targeting, they remain

profit

market-based understanding has triggered

difficult to interpret and implement for

partnerships. It might take some time to

a shift from an environment of strict

businesses. When they seem to target the

build trust between these two realms, but

compliance

general

sometimes

examples exist where businesses are able

arguably increasingly unnecessary — to one

disconnected from the ground realities.

to maintain their corporate objectives while

encouraging

—

longer

some

due

which and

public,

was

they

one

are

the

responsibility.

realm

After being censured by

through

roundtables

and

the

They do not really outline what is expected

NGOs are able to achieve their humanitari-

emergence of norms. Companies have

of businesses, nor do they provide real

an missions. Starbucks, for example, has

begun to recognize the issues affecting their

solutions.

that

been increasingly involved with the Fair

industries and to voluntarily sign onto

embracing these emerging norms implied

Trade movement. The goal becomes then to

protocols

infiltrating

encourage smaller companies to follow the

that

diligence

being

ambiguity

seek to address

them.

Participants

the

also

company’s

noted

culture

and

Voluntary initiatives like the UN Guiding

changing its business model from inside

Principles and the UN Global Compact have,

out, which can be a lengthy and difficult

as such, proliferated, and are becoming the

process.

the

This meeting summary is intended to provide

benchmark for partners in the supply chain.

roundtable observed that, although these

an overview of the discussion and is not

However, the presenter highlighted the

guidelines and norms had been around for

intended to be a formal record of proceedings.

ambiguity of some of these initiatives: The

nearly 20 years, many industries have yet to

None of the views expressed represent the

UN Guiding Principles Section 13 calls for

see changes.

formal or official views or position of any

Consequently,

some

companies to “seek to prevent or mitigate

leaders and join the movement.

specific organization. Statements or opinions

human rights impacts that are directly

Some large companies have, nevertheless,

by any presenter or participant in this meeting

linked to their operations”, which raises a

made the shift and incorporated norms

are non-attributable.

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Measuring Impact in Implementation

Roundtable 2: April 21, 2014 The success of the implementation of security and human rights programs can often be difficult to measure. Regardless, interested parties demand that monitoring and evaluation provide demonstrable results of the effectiveness of implementation projects. This Roundtable examined how the effectiveness of implementation can be measured. Presenters asserted that since human rights programs are not efficient from a technical perspective, these programs require unique forms of impact analyses. One presenter suggested that evaluators combine quantitative data with narrative analysis to identify and learn from successful programs. Roundtable participants maintained that a successful impact analysis of human rights programs requires historical and contextual understanding of the community in questions. The Roundtable concluded that human rights programs require

comprehensive evaluations to determine their overall effectiveness.

security,

this quantitative data, the agency is able to

effectiveness of the Voluntary Principles on

When analyzing the impact and

effective evaluation will look both within a

assess the region-wide impact of their

Security and Human Rights, many stake-

country as well as regionally for indicators

implementation.

holders demand demonstrable, quantitative

and impact. In some cases such as Thailand,

results. In the field of human rights, results

security issues are localized, thus data can

When looking at results-based, quantitative

are

these

be more internally focused, whereas al

measurements

elements of the data are just as imperative

Qaeda’s broad sphere of influence, from

presenter stated, human rights work is not

to the general evaluation. The Roundtable

Mauritania to Eritrea, represents a regional

technically efficient. This statement does

discussed the indicators that can be used,

security threat that must be evaluated on a

not mean that the work should not be

as well as the methods of measuring the

broader scale. Many of the indicators

carried out, but

effectiveness of implementation of the

evaluated allow us to see the progress a

evaluated differently — using indicators to

Voluntary Principles.

country or region has made, although they

measure impact rather than a win-or-lose

do not necessarily show how that progress

scenario. For example, measuring the work

was made.

of human rights groups is much less clear

often

unquantifiable,

and

In an example of analyzing and evaluating

When

evaluating

peace

and

the impact of a program that isn’t easily

impact,

the

rather, it

second

should be

than that of health services. Results of

quantifiable, the first presentation cited the

To combat this, the presenter recommends

health services are tangible and direct in

United States Government’s Peace and

a combination of quantitative data as well

both the long and short term, whereas

Security Index, which compiles quantitative

as narrative reports to fully represent the

policy change involves multiples actors,

data to measure its indicators. Many reports

situation. The presenter uses a government

opposition,

utilize numerical rankings and indexes. For

agency’s evaluation of counter-terrorism as

timeframe, all of which make determining

example, The Fund for Peace’s Fragile States

an example. In this case, data was collected

causality much more difficult. For those

Index and the CIRI Human Rights Data

from five African countries using indicator

working in the human rights field, the

Project create clear and quantitative results

scales, which allowed for the numerical

presenter

that

representation

steps for the evaluation of their work:

allow

comparison.

for

further

discussion

and

broad

ideas

and

questions. Using a radar graph to illustrate

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

and

recommended

unpredictable

the

following

Security, Rights and Development Roundtable 2014



The presenter used three main tools to

Participants discussed the importance of

measure the effectiveness of their work in

collaboration between their companies and

the field of human rights. The first method,

NGOs. These exchanges allow for peoples’

risk

perceptions of the companies to change

consequences, probability of an incident

through more transparency and reports of

occurrence,

these

successes and failures by the NGO, which

incidents will have on the organization. The

carry more weight than reports coming

second tool is process Indicators: a set of

from within the company. Some feel that

Key Performance Indicators (KPI), which

when sharing negative impact, the story is

help to reduce the likelihood of incident

best coming from the company itself, while

Distilling meaningfully: the organization

occurrence and identify possible gaps within

positive results should be reported by a

must be able to boil down its data and

the organization. The last is Grievance

collaborating

translate it into meaningful information;

System Analysis. Grievances are a difficult

important to share the responsibility of

“Horses for courses”: the evaluation

indicator to analyze because often, the

impact as to not steal a project from a host

must answer the preliminary question

community is unaware of how to report a

country or multilateral team.

while adapting to available resources;

grievance or are afraid to do so. The lack of

and

reported grievances should not be an

When analyzing the Voluntary Principles, it

indication that there are no grievances.

is important to recognize the targeted

Similarly, a high number of grievances or a

actors and measure the impact of the

spike in reporting should not automatically

Voluntary Principles. Proper analysis of the

be interpreted as an indication of a crisis, as

impact

perhaps the mechanism is working more

Principles, as with any analysis of impact in

effectively

the field of human rights, involves quantita-

Development of a robust worldview: the organization must be able to establish an identity and goals, and be able to learn from both its successes and its failures;



Doing the simple things right: the organization must take responsibility for details and outcomes, ensuring basic information is stable and settled;



Adding to the innovation “to do” list: learning happens through exchanges, and the organization can use new ideas as tools.

The

third

presentation

difficulties

examined

of assessing the

the

impact

human rights work due to the difficult nature of proving what did not happen, also referred to as “the dog that didn’t bark”. Additionally, it is nearly impossible to

definitively

analyze

program

impacts

without comprehensive knowledge of the multifaceted

regional

importance

background.

contextual

The

knowledge

necessitates the examination of long-term indicators.

Education

example,

can

indicators

community.

serve

and as

long-term

income,

for

representative impact

assessment, and

utilizes

indicators

potential

capturing

effect

community

concerns.

NGO.

Additionally,

implementing

the

Voluntary

tive and qualitative data, narrative, and long - and short-term indicators.

Collecting data was discussed, including the importance of properly compiling evaluations

without

external

influence.

This

involves collecting data from a broad range of sources, as well as ensuring that human rights values penetrate every level of a company through training and departmental

organization.

often

unquantifiable,

Developments necessitating

are a

narrative-driven approach to data analysis.

When measuring impact, it is important to add qualitative evaluation to data.

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

This meeting summary is intended to provide an overview of the discussion and is not intended to be a formal record of proceedings. None of the views expressed represent the formal or official views or position of any specific organization. Statements or opinions by any presenter or participant in this meeting are non-attributable.

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Maritime Security & the Extractive Industry

Roundtable 3: June 17, 2014 Maritime security is an often neglected component of the security landscape and is a source of risk for nearly every company. Whether it be threats against off-shore exploration, relations with affected communities on the water, or even port security issues in the supply chain, this Roundtable examined the importance and relevance of maritime security. In the discussion of crime, participants asserted the causal relationship between economic deprivation and criminal enterprise, indicating that regions suffering from economic instability are more prone to crime. The Roundtable distinguished between different forms of crime, all of which necessitate specific mitigation strategies. In terms of preparedness, presenters demonstrated the importance of human rights training and emergency response teams. Participants testified to the importance of a foundational approach to security,

addressing issues of language and communication technology first.

Maritime security is a subject often

presenter noted the rising importance of

this relationship, however, does not always

and

maritime security in Africa indicated by the

function smoothly.

consequently, is often overlooked. This

economic reliance on the fishing industry,

Roundtable, however, was able to examine

which heightens the necessity of maritime

The third presentation focused on private

this often-ignored topic in greater depth.

security in mitigating threats ranging from

security providers. Often, private security

Some of the main issues discussed revolved

pirates to oil spills. Generally, programs

companies will establish relationships with

around the role of both public and private

carried out by public security forces are

local authorities but these relationships can

maritime

asymmetrical, and if carried out in a

different form would be ineffective.

connections can be challenging, they are

overshadowed

security

land

and

security

the

extractive industry, particularly focusing on Africa.

The

Roundtable

began

with

difficult

maintain.

While

these

essential in establishing security in the host

presentations from three different groups

The second presentation focused on the oil

region,

working on the aforementioned issues.

and gas exploration sector. By employing

communication, and allowing for sharing of

mitigation procedures as well as emergency

expectations,

The first presentation focused on public

response teams, oil and gas exploration

human rights standards.

security forces that are helping to mitigate

companies ensure the safety of their staff in

security concerns in Africa. Many similar

times of insecurity and/or natural disasters.

Regarding problems of a transnational

services seek to build defensive capabilities

Local public security forces employed by

nature such as tackling piracy, cross-border

to protect national interests in their host

companies should adhere to the laws of the

crime

regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s extractive sector while promoting

country in which they are operating. These

suggested that building capacity had to start

regional security and stability with the

forces are sometimes administered by local

with the basics. Some of these basic

broader goal of enabling regional security to

governments. The presenter noted that

elements include simple steps such as

secure

Through

more often than not, security forces are

hiring employees who speak the local

engagement with partners in extractive

given human rights training. In some cases,

language or dialect, and ensuring that

industries, public security forces are better

explorative companies choose to work with

communications equipment is adequate

able to ensure security in the region. The

specialized law enforcement squadrons, but

and

their

own

coasts.

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

ensuring

and

clear

particularly

trafficking,

good

working

lines in

one

regard

participant

order.

These

Security, Rights and Development Roundtable 2014

recommendations

can

provide

better

outcomes during emergency situations.

The

dialogue

steered

among

towards

participants

crime.

Regions

approach

been

security concerns? This question needs to

markedly different. Their priorities are to

the

criminals

has

be addressed in order to better assess the

steal product rather than taking hostages.

security situation.

then

This has proven to be more difficult, as

these actions are often conducted through

This

vulnerable to crime include areas with a

broader

these

participants the opportunity to discuss and

high-level of poverty, underemployment,

criminals are neither captured nor tried

learn more about groups working in public

and a weak security infrastructure. Often,

because of weak and corrupt regional

and private maritime security. Most of the

criminals cannot be stopped with regulation

judicial systems.

discussion centered on issues of capacity

networks.

Additionally,

alone; properly trained personnel are often necessary.

and In

order

organizations Across

Africa,

criminals

have

different

programs,

deal must

with

corruption,

assess

necessary

transparency,

was

capability,

able

corruption,

provide

criminal

networks, and other transnational issues.

regional

This meeting summary is intended to provide

approaches to, and methods for generating

partner agencies â&#x20AC;&#x201C; all of which require

an overview of the discussion and is not

profit. In East Africa, for example, criminals

significant resources including money and

intended to be a formal record of proceedings.

often target ships in-transit in order to

staff.

and

None of the views expressed represent the

ransom the boat and its crew. Fortunately,

capacity, it is important to distinguish

formal or official views or position of any

international navies and private security

between the two. Often, it is not a matter of

specific organization. Statements or opinions

guards on-board these vessels have been

capability but rather a question of capacity.

by any presenter or participant in this meeting

able to deter and decrease the number of

Many countries have the capability but do

are non-attributable.

such criminal actions. In West Africa, the

they have the current capacity to address

When

www.fundforpeace.org

considering

and

discussion

capability

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Grievance Mechanisms and Remedy Frameworks Roundtable 4: September 15, 2014 This Roundtable delved into the subject of grievance mechanisms for strengthening relationships with the community and reducing incidence of grievances in the first place. Special attention was given to the challenges companies face in establishing effective and efficient grievance mechanisms. The roundtable emphasized the importance of grievance mechanisms arguing that in our modern world, the responsibility to protect and uphold human rights is shared by businesses and states. Grievance mechanisms are not only critical from a human rights standpoint, they can create economic gains by reducing friction with local communities. This Roundtable discussion provided an opportunity for participants to discuss the purpose, process, and challenges of grievance systems in their industries, as well as the benefits of these

mechanisms not only for the community they are in, but also to the company itself.

As our world becomes increasingly globally

interconnected, it

becoming

relationship between the community and

There are many crucial steps in developing

the company.

a grievance mechanism. A company must

increasingly clear that governments and

demonstrate

accountability

being

businesses have equal responsibility to

The scope of the project should include a

receptive to grievances in order to establish

protect and address human rights issues.

broad

representation

trust within communities. Making elusive

Addressing grievances is beneficial not only

of stakeholders, local leaders as well as the

promises is counterproductive as unfulfilled

to the communities but also to businesses.

larger population and should diverge from

promises can become targets for rallying

The goals of grievance mechanisms are to

the power structure of the local community.

community resentment. Grievances should

foster communication between companies

In this step, it is crucial to distinguish

be screened, assessed, and assigned to the

and

between a complaint and a grievance: a

appropriate

uphold and restore the rights of individuals.

grievance will eventually cause harm in a

teams.

situation, and should be resolved before it

independent body, a resolution should be

becomes a larger issue.

developed and acted upon, which may

marginalized

Companies

communities

should

have

and

grievance

range

mechanisms not only because of legal and

team

After

local

community

investigation

result in rejection of a grievance. After

ethical obligations, but because it creates

When assessing risk, it is important to

following up on grievances, it is crucial that

more effective business operations and

understand the nature of the field, the

companies learn from their experiences.

averts

language used in the field and the dynamics

issues

such

vandalisms,

and

production.

other

theft,

protests,

hindrances

effective

of the environment, proximity, cultural and

Establishing

the

mechanism

grievance

community relations. The scope and scale of

should

mechanismâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s legitimacy is trusted by the

the grievance mechanism must be defined,

throughout local communities to encourage

community, is accessible geographically and

as well as the size of the community and

popular

financially, and should have predictable and

how grievance would impact it. Lastly,

relationships with the community.

stable guidelines. These mechanisms should

changes that will occur after the grievance

be equitable and transparent, and must

mechanism should be projected.

engage in further dialogue to sustain the

www.fundforpeace.org

include

grievance

use

significant and

foster

publicity enduring

The mechanism should be tracked and monitored over time to ensure that the

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights and Development Roundtable 2014

community is satisfied with the results as

In many cases, there is pressure put on the

Although a risk may not seem worthy of

well as the process. Root cause analysis is

process to make hurried decisions and

their

crucial in looking for holes in the project.

produce rapid results. To maintain the

without action or remedy, a risk may

legitimacy of the process and effectiveness

become a grievance.

assessment

and

urgent

funding,

In many instances, there are cultural and

of the results of the grievance mechanism, it

traditional barriers for sections of the

and

As the intersection between business and

population in filing grievances. In this case,

deliberate process. Using consultations to

human rights has merged over the last

changes

both

measure the expectations of clients, as well

decade, the role of grievance mechanisms

internally (through surveillance, security,

as balancing timing, aids in the process of

has become significantly more prominent.

and supervisors) and externally (through

building legitimacy and trust.

This Roundtable discussion provided an

must

implemented

crucial

maintain

careful

the work of NGOs and local communities) in order

promote

expression.

Often,

opportunity for participants to discuss the When

considering

the

hierarchy

purpose,

process,

and

challenges

traditional values being transferred through

mechanisms, participants noted the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

grievance systems in their industries, as well

workforces serve as the main challenge in

duty to provide judicial structures, and that

as the benefits of these mechanisms not

the investigation of a grievance.

companies are taking on the role of the

only for the community they are in, but also

state and responsibility to provide access to

to the company itself.

Participants languages

discussed between

the

human

differing rights

remedies. It was noted, however, that states

and

often lack the capacity to provide access to

This meeting summary is intended to provide

business. While these variations can cause

these mechanisms. In these cases, it is the

an overview of the discussion and is not

disparities, it is important to note that they

responsibility of the company to know when

intended to be a formal record of proceedings.

are slowly converging and that there should

and where to take on this role, and to assist

None of the views expressed represent the

be a shared understanding of grievance

in the development of these programs.

formal or official views or position of any

mechanisms. Rather than seeking to delay

specific organization. Statements or opinions

remedies, it is essential to help the clients

and identify roots of the grievance.

assessment and remedy programs, they

many

companies

fund

their

own

by any presenter or participant in this meeting are non-attributable.

must address risks in a timely manner.

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Engaging with Host Government Security Forces Roundtable 5: November 4, 2014 Operating alongside public security forces is a near constant reality for extractive industries. The actions of those forces can heavily influence the stability of a company’s operational environment. This Roundtable examined steps that companies can take to work productively alongside public security forces. The participants of the roundtable also shared recommendations for ways that companies can influence security forces to have more amicable relationships with the local community. A strong and transparent relationship with host government security forces is mutually beneficial to both the military and the extractive industry company. Maintaining clear goals and boundaries during the establishment of such a relationship is crucial, and a military should act in the support of humanitarian assistance in order to build community trust. This

Roundtable discussion opened the door to critical evaluation of these systems.

While operating in a host country,

sis of strategic and operational capabilities

the forefront of accomplishing a nation’s

extractive companies are often faced with

of the host government’s security forces

goals, there is often a negative perception

the engagement of public security forces.

becomes possible, as well as recognition of

associated.

This Roundtable discussion observed the

warning points.

advantages, challenges, and tools of en-

One presenter argued that a military should

gagement with host government security

In regards to a company’s paradigm shifts, it

be professionalized as an institution, while

forces, as well as the role and goals of these

was noted that often these come with a

maintaining the ideas of public service and

military forces. Understanding the host

change in budget and programming rather

responsibility. When this is not the case, a

government as well as maintaining trans-

than in policy and doctrine. Generally, secu-

military loses sight of its purpose and is

parent relationships, both with the media,

rity programs are recently about broader

more susceptible to corruption and mis-

partners, local communities, and govern-

security, and peacebuilding is not a consid-

management. When engaging with host

ments, are key tools in successful engage-

eration. In these cases, a military becomes

government

ment with security forces.

an extension of diplomatic capability, while

should act upon two rules: expectations

security capability is only improved through

must be communicated and problems must

learning organization.

be approached from the host country’s per-

There are multiple advantages for a nation engaging with host government security

security

forces,

military

spective.

forces. Creating steady state relationships is

Soft power is accomplished when there is

an investment into an alliance which will be

an investment in human security, more than

It is crucial to incorporate safety and a se-

useful should a crisis occur. Soft power is

national security. When there is an overreli-

cure environment into the company’s core

generated through sustained multilayer

ance on the military, diplomacy and devel-

values, and these security issues are rooted

relations. For example, encouraging interna-

opment efforts are pushed aside, and when

in social development. A company’s human

tional partnerships so no nation acts unilat-

a government fails, a military is left to step

rights policy may include security principles

erally generates soft power. Lastly, these

in. A military should be integrated and used

such as working with public security forces

relationships allow for greater situational

in support of national priorities rather than

and collaborating with outside security forc-

understanding. Contextualization and analy-

leading these efforts. If a military is seen in

es. All levels of a company should have a

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights and Development Roundtable 2014

system for identifying and handling high risk

opportunity for transparency without giving

management of grievances helps to avoid

situations in accordance with the Voluntary

up harmful information, which creates a

the situation of an ambivalent government

Principles.

crucial allied relationship with the media.

creating worse crises.

Trust with a host government is built Participants noted that although building a

through acting on strategic outcomes rather

A strong and transparent relationship with

military-to-military relationship is straight-

than tactical strategies, all of which is dis-

host government security forces can be

forward, it is also important to consider

played through a companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transparency.

mutually beneficial to both the military and

other opportunities. There is a benefit to

the extractive industry company. Maintain-

exchange that extends well beyond a mili-

An example of possible engagement with

ing clear goals and boundaries during the

tary-to-military relationship. For example, a

host government security forces would be

establishment of such a relationship is cru-

naval commander with a Western education

in disaster response. Following the Oslo

cial, and a military should act in the support

has benefitted widely from the partnership

guidelines, a military must act only in sup-

of humanitarian assistance in order to build

between nations, thus would be significantly

port of humanitarian assistance. Generally,

community trust. Engagement with a host

more likely to maintain relations in the fu-

to avoid the perception of a public relations

governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s security forces is a near con-

ture and see the value of such affiliations.

stunt, a response team must be sent out

stant occurrence for extractive industry

When a company is engaging with a host

before the military, and the military is only

companies, and this Roundtable discussion

government or military, it is crucial to think

deployed if an exit strategy exists. Without

opened the door to critical evaluation of

strategically and act tactically, while consid-

an exit strategy, the military will often desta-

these systems.

ering global consequences and performing

bilize more than it helps a situation.

on a local level. When an incident does go wrong, the proWhile transparency, both within security

cess of management consists of three steps.

circles and the public, is an important tool in

Leverage networks and relationships must

building community trust, some information

be coordinated, which necessitates com-

would have a negative impact on the com-

plete understanding of capabilities and limi-

munity. Giving context specific answers

tations in the situation. Addressing both

when interacting with media has multiple

individual and constant problems ensures

benefits. Firstly, it gives the company an

that a situation does not regress. Lastly,

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights & Development Roundtable 2014

Managing First Contact

Roundtable 6: December 16, 2014 The actions of a company in the initial stages of exploration can significantly shape community perceptions, attitudes, and expectations during the later stages of a project. This Roundtable focused on establishing Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), ensuring that projects get off to a good start with all stakeholders, and creating productive relationships at the beginning of a project. The Roundtable emphasized the importance of cultural understanding and risk management in the early stages of engagement. Early engagement must address issues of cultural and social barriers to communication as well as the alleviation of grievances. These measures can help to achieve a stable operating environment for the given project and any future project in the region.

When entering a new environment,

globally, particularly in areas of Africa, Latin

traditional means of decision making in the

mining companies must be aware of their

America, and Southeast Asia that have seen

community should be respected. Without

perception

new

a large demand for FPIC from civil society.

early engagement, the risks of the operation

community. This Roundtable discussed the

FPIC has been incorporated into many

increase. Social conflict is hugely expensive

necessity and impact of Free, Prior and

corporate

that

for companies, as well as being damaging to

Informed

indigenous peoples have their voices heard

communities. Respecting the rights of a

during the duration of the project.

community and reducing the risks involved

and

Consent

community creating

actions

within

(FPIC)

their

concrete

the

host

involvement. and

structures

ensure

consensual

is a key step in the FPIC process.

relationship throughout each phase of the

Early engagement can be difficult because

explorative project, all stakeholders are

of cultural and social barriers. Community

Exploration is the first stage of the mine

likely to benefit more and set themselves up

protocols

development

for a stable working relationship for the

engagement.

future.

traditional

means

engaging

marginalized

are

effective This

tools

includes of

early

respecting

decision

making,

groups,

strategies

cycle.

slow

and

methodical process. A site may be explored by

many

different

companies

the

and

duration of its existence. Fewer than 1 in

overcome

10,000 mineral discoveries become a mine,

Additionally,

so it is a high risk process, particularly in

signed

managing

FPIC involves rights for indigenous peoples

developing

and best practices to safeguard human

communications

rights for any extractive project. In this

participatory

model, communities have the option to

community-validated

ensure

Exploration companies are often the first

consent to or reject a project at each phase

the alleviation of grievances early in the

point of contact between communities and

of project development free from coercion.

process of engagement.

the mining company, thus it is crucial to

barriers.

mapping

and

agreements

and

Ideally, consultations with local communi-

community

expectations.

engage with the community at this stage.

ties occurs prior to the authorization of a

Early engagement of communities is an

project by a government or third parties.

important factor to a productive project.

To further this point, it is important for the

Many communities use a local referenda

mining company to identify for whom this is

system

first contact and, if it is the community, with

Support for the concept of FPIC is growing

www.fundforpeace.org

make

decisions,

but

any

The Fund for Peace

Security, Rights and Development Roundtable 2014

what is this the first contact, such as with

because it builds trust at each new phase

the policies can then be institutionalized.

mining or with the industrial world in

and emphasizes the importance of consent

Finally, a common practice seems to be that

general. Additionally, it is important to

at each changing stage. In order for there to

a company contracts a consulting company

consider the role and interest of the

be a productive relationship between a

to do all community relations in an entirely

government in the mining process, as well

company and a community, there must be

proxy manner. Local governments and

as a way to incorporate them that is

continual mutual understanding.

partnerships are key, although often, local

effective for both parties. Gaining the

communities

can

struggle

see

the

support of the community has a significant

A well-intentioned government will respond

difference between the two as they are both

impact

gaining

proactively to communities. It is important

assumed to

investment and buyers in an explorative

the

probability

to balance the rights of communities to

untrustworthy and without the best interest

rich, foreign, perhaps

project.

attain resource wealth with the rights of

of the community in mind.

local communities to their land. There are Engagement with communities at each

special protections for indigenous peoples,

The

phase of project development is imperative,

but that is only one aspect. The risk of social

highlighted the importance of a continuing

especially

conflict with internal sovereignty is evidence

and communicative relationship between

relationships and needs can easily change

that there needs to be a social license in

the company and the host community,

from one phase to the next. In one example,

order to operate a mining project. The

which involves cultural respect as well as

a project

moved

government is not always speaking for its

risk management on both sides. Creating a

onshore â&#x20AC;&#x201D; with the move onshore came

people, therefore, negotiating and com-

stable relationship through early engage-

increased interaction and friction with local

municating exclusively with the government

ment benefits the company in that with

communities, which the project had not

will not ensure the same social license as

prepared because the initial intention of the

the communities might authorize.

generally be more profit from all stakehold-

with an evolving project

that

began offshore

project was to remain offshore. Therefore,

participants

community

this

support,

roundtable

there

will

ers in the future.

contact between the corporate headquar-

In a generic instance, there should be

ters and the project field staff needed to be

intermediaries at every stage. In the stage of

This meeting summary is intended to provide

strong in order to accommodate a shifting

first contact, the intermediary can be a

an overview of the discussion and is not

situation and its impact on the local

representative of both parties and provide

intended to be a formal record of proceedings.

community.

introductions. Later on, the intermediary

None of the views expressed represent the

could be more specialized, such as in

formal or official views or position of any

The social license is not a static contract,

environmental or development issues. They

specific organization. Statements or opinions

which is in the best interest of both the

provide skills, money, and credibility. If a

by any presenter or participant in this meeting

affected communities and the company

government organization can be utilized,

are non-attributable.

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace